--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <vajradh...@...> wrote: > > > On Jul 9, 2010, at 11:34 AM, randyanand wrote: > > > It was in a back and forth posting on Fairifield Life many month ago. > > I was making the point that you kept referring to Maharishi as > > Mahesh and it was disrespectful because whatever you think of him, > > thats his name. You countered with, you would not call him > > Maharishi because he was not a real guru and he poisoned his guru. > > Like I said, I don't believe he poisoned his guru, he may have in > some way been complicit, I feel it speaks more to his character than > to his actual actions. > > > > > Sorry Vaj, first you say he poisoned him to me, then you deny > > believing that. You are inconsistant. > > Please show me the post you're referring to, and then I can better > respond to your accusations. I'm just telling you what I've believed > for a long time, I really don't care what you chose to think you know > I believe! > > > Also I have noticed that you only seem to respond to certan posts > > here when you can twist them to fit your beliefs. For example, > > when I repeated twice in two previous posts that just because > > Maharishi had someone else design his yoga course does not mean > > that he is or is not a yogi, you made no attempt to respond. When > > I said in a previous post that there is no way to verify that he > > did or did not recieve some type of "special yogi" training from > > Guru Dev, you again did not respond. Because you make statements > > that you can not prove. The same with the poisoning of Guru dev. > > There has never been any evidence of poisoning. > > You've already decided what you want to believe. > > > > > Oh and by the way, many months ago we got into a discussion about > > the Shankaracharya tradition. You stated it was part of the > > Vaishnava tradition. I disagreed and said it was a Shaivite > > tradition. We went back and forth on this and I finally realized > > who I was dealing with. You are not interested in the facts about > > things, only your opinions. Well, for the record, I have since > > been to india and visited the Shankaracharya ashram in Allahabad, > > the Shankaracharya ashram in Kanchipuram and one of the heads of > > the Juna Akhara of Naga Babas. They all confirmed that the > > Shankaracharya tradition is not asociated with the Vaishnava > > tradition, it is in fact a Shaivite tradition. So here I can > > definitely cite my sources and say, sorry dude, you were wrong. > > Although knowing you, you'll prpbably come back and say you never > > said that, or twist your words so you will not appear wrong. > > You are entitiled to your opinions Vaj. Just realize, that like > > all of us, you sometime may be wrong. > > You sound confused. The Shakaracharya tradition is a Vaishnavite > tradition but it not from the Vaishnavite tradition. I doubt you'll > get what I mean by that. Also be aware many, many sadhus have little > knowledge of their own historical origins or place. But I'm glad you > found the answer you sought. Just because they worship or accept > Shiva would not make them a Shaivite line. It still sounds like > you're confusing the two. Again, I recommend you take a look at the > TM puja which shows the tradition originating from Vishnu-Narayana. >
Oh yes, I see. You know more about the Shankaracharya tradition than the Shankaracharya ashrams themselves. If they say they are Shaivite tradition, they must not know what they are talking about, even though its about themselves. You know more than they know about themselves. Got it Vaj. When confronted to with the facts you will twist them to still make yourself right. Your endless egotism never ceases to amaze me.
